With Algeria I think it is going to head the same way as Libya did post Gadafi. To this point in time Boutifleka and his national party have keep things under control. The FIS (Federation Islamique salvation) were a problem for sometime back in the nineties but Boutifleka took a very hard handed approach, hence no more problem. With the national party no longer in charge there is a danger that the islamic party will gain control. When I worked in Algeria the educated professionals were really ticked off at the application of islamic laws. Most of them were fairly European in their lifestyes, preferred to speak French or French with a smattering of Berber mixed in. Many did not speak Arabic at all until it became law. The professional women were not pleased about having to wear head coverings or dress in a particular manner. But even with those changes women still held senior positions in Sonatrach and the government and life certainly wasn't what one would expect in an islamic state. My worry is once the youth toss out Boutifleka the country will immediately go completely islamic with sharia law etc. For some reason it seems that certain countries run more efficiently under the rule of a benevolent strong man. That was certainly the case in Libya and Egypt and I suspect it will prove to be the case in Algeria as well. Time will tell.

Algeria is burning through its foreign reserves as its export revenues are falling and at the same time having difficulties in cutting its import expenses without igniting a revolution among its population.

Europe is dependent on Algerian oil and natural gas imports...as well on food exports to Algeria...and will most likely make an intervention to stop the Islamists in Algeria.

From what I have read about Libya is that the nation today has two governments. The eastern government is supported by Russia and France...while the western government is supported by the U.S. and Turkey and Italy...which is a bit confusing...maybe it's just good old divide and rule?

rockdoc123 wrote:For some reason it seems that certain countries run more efficiently under the rule of a benevolent strong man. That was certainly the case in Libya and Egypt and I suspect it will prove to be the case in Algeria as well. Time will tell.

Benevolent being the key word there. A benevolent and wise dictator can do a good job for his country just because he doesn't have to placate any opposition with compromises that diminish effectiveness. Unfortunately dictators that are both benevolent and wise are an endangered species and the USA has a terrible record or trying to pick them out and place them in power. Why you think Qaddafi was anything more then the run of the mill kleptocrate strongman is a mystery to me.

Legacy declines now exceed what new oil can be brought online. Between Shale and conventional the declines are now at least 4 mb/d per year, and that will be increasing with each and every coming year. That is by definition Peak, and this can be verified from simple mathematical relationships. Investors don't have as much problem with grade school mathematics as the paid misinformation crowd, and other general illiterates do here. The situation is rapidly becoming common knowledge among the investment community. How investors will react to a declining world GDP will depend on where they are. What we are seeing now is massive flows into bonds, and massive outflows from equities. It would be reasonable to assume that this trend will continue as world GDP falls with falling crude production for at least the next couple of years. Falling GDP means lower sales revenue, lower profits, and greater debt service costs. Investors will respond by dropping the follow the FED, or BTFD strategy, and return to value investing. At that point the CB will have lost control and volatility will be exploding. Being able to out maneuver risk is going to again become the hallmark of a good trader. Peak will be changing the way the world does business!

Why you think Qaddafi was anything more then the run of the mill kleptocrate strongman is a mystery to me.

I worked on projects in Libya for sometime back when he was still in charge and I have a very good friend who has been in-country since he was over thrown dealing with enormous security issues that have resulted.

The country is a real mish mash of various tribes all with very different desires. Qaddafi or Gaddafi or however you want to translate from the Arabic was the one person who was able to unite those tribes. Tribal conflicts were numerous prior to that and non-existent during his rule. The average person had pretty much all their needs. Petrol was subsidized so that the poorest individual could afford to fill his truck in order to transport olives or vegetables, fish etc. Housing was cheap and readily available. Arguably I spent much of my time in and around Tripoli and Benghazi and the coast (where 90% of the population is) but I never witnessed any poverty, certainly not like I had seen in Abuja or Cairo. Gaddafi was also responsible for installing the great man made river which entailed about 3000 km of huge concrete pipe which runs from the deep desert near Sarir all the way to the coast in order to bring much needed fresh water which improved lifestyle and commercial agriculture immensely. I also noted that Tripoli was, without doubt, the one city I felt very safe wandering around in. There was virtually no random crime and the streets were very clean. There was a less than obvious police presence everywhere (at night you would occasionally pass a car parked on the street which had two members of the security force sitting in it. Canadian and European Expats I knew lived in a compound just outside of Tripoli but that was less for their protection than it was to keep them from screwing up the average Libyans lifestyle. The bottom line is that when you compare Gaddafi to someone like Bongo what you find is a leader who honestly cared for his country and people. The oil money was reinvested to help the people whereas in Gabon virtually none of it made it out of the hands of Bongo and his elite. Certainly Gaddafi and his family were taking a share of the wealth (such is Africa) but there was still a lot going back into the country and the hands of the people. He was certainly as crazy as a soup sandwich and his sons were a few bricks short of a load but when compared to many of the other rulers he did do good for the country. That is why I separate him out.As usual the press focuses on all the bad things about him which isn't surprising. You didn't fully understand what was going on unless you had been there. The fact the country fell apart like it did once he was no longer in power is instructive. According to my contact there is more corruption, more fighting and less security for all than there ever was under his rule and the average citizen no longer has any protections.

Thanks for that post Short on Oil. It's very interesting watching what's going on with this juggernaut. A lot of people are going to be very unhappy and looking for scapegoats. It looks like they are going to be taking on Mexico, Central America and Venezuela next.

Okay, now, can we get back to the peak oil debate? I have a feeling that we are on the edge of the Ugo Bardi Seneca Cliff. We are beginning to see over the edge. It would be nice to hang out here on the rim, checking out the view, but it looks like we are on our way down soon.

Matt Simmons was right about peak and decline of the Saudi super giant Ghawar oil field. But he failed to see that Saudi Arabia could compensate the decline of Ghawar by bringing on line other giant fields.

Still most of the oil producing nations are post peak oil today...and they don't have giant oil fields to compensate for their declines.

Yoshua wrote:Matt Simmons was right about peak and decline of the Saudi super giant Ghawar oil field. But he failed to see that Saudi Arabia could compensate the decline of Ghawar by bringing on line other giant fields.

Still most of the oil producing nations are post peak oil today...and they don't have giant oil fields to compensate for their declines.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)

From the EIA I get that of the top twenty producers ten are increasing production while ten are declining. The biggest loser by far is Venezuela at 1.07mbpd loss followed by Mexico (-0.52) and China (-0.360). Added together the losses for those ten amount to 2.65 mbpd which has been more then made up for by the USA's increase of 2.7mbpd with the other nine increases bring the world to it's present high. As the top losers are both driven by mismanagement more then geology I'd say it is premature to call peak just yet.

Revi wrote:Okay, now, can we get back to the peak oil debate? I have a feeling that we are on the edge of the Ugo Bardi Seneca Cliff. We are beginning to see over the edge. It would be nice to hang out here on the rim, checking out the view, but it looks like we are on our way down soon.

Year after year, decade after decade, doomers keep claiming that we are at the point just before the big crash. And you know the track record on such predictions.

1). So why keep saying that unless something meaningful has changed, since if not, the results of such predictions are inevitably the same as the last failed predictions?

2). What do you know that the EIA and the IEA don't, since they're predicting the plateau to continue until 2040, or possibly 2050? (And that's as far as they predict, so then we'll have to see). Their track records re predictions are far from perfect, but overall they're reasonable, unlike the fast crash doomer track records.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.